The consultation on radical plans to pedestrianise Oxford Street has been extended into next year, after residents called for more time to consider the proposals.
Westminster City Council said feedback from residents had been to extend the consultation timings to give people more time to submit their views over Christmas, with the mayor and Transport for London giving the green light to an extension.
The consultation which began at the beginning of November was set to close on Sunday 17 December, but it now won’t close until Wednesday 3 January.
“We have listened closely to our residents and others who have asked us to extend the consultation period and we are pleased to be able to do so, particularly over the holiday season where people may have more time.
We’ve made lots of information available to the public about out plans and we want to give everyone, particularly those who will be directly affected, the greatest opportunity to consider the detailed proposals and submit their views as we want to hear from as many people as possible.”
Last month, the plans were unveiled to restrict east-west traffic from entering Oxford Street between Orchard Street and Oxford Circus.
The proposals are intended to address air quality concerns, the high frequency of collisions – around 60 a year, and severe overcrowding during the busiest parts of the day.
The introduction of the Elizabeth Line is expected to significantly increase visitor numbers in the area, according to Transport for London.
If given the green light, the transformation of Oxford Street would be delivered in three phases with the full revamp in place by 2021.
Alex Williams, director of City planning at TfL, said the extension “will allow residents, businesses and visitors to the local area more opportunity to respond to the proposals, which are designed to secure Oxford Street and the wider district’s future as an unrivalled place to live, work and visit”.
Article originally appeared on City A.M
The Institute cannot confirm the accuracy of this story or confirm that it presents a balanced view. If you feel this is inaccurate we would welcome your perspective and evidence that this is the case.
